Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: SALVADOR HERNANDEZ < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. 1 ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In lightof all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Robert Gonzalez < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:50 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett<[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind? With close proximity to the Gold Line, e-bikes offer a perfect opportunity for riders to replace a car, and I urge you to try the combination to replace some of your trips.
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it wilt "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and . that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. 1 ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, orVMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bobby
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Lexx < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:10 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett<[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. 1 ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Andrew Medina < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:32 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program 91103 zip code
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:31 PM Andrew Medina < > wrote:
Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
I As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
! The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not I necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and i that it does not conflict with other Department's missions. i PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
I In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on I roads. And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
I The PWP report also is missing key facts:
I ** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates.
I ** "Ah e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission 1 j vehicle] subsidy."
j ** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here.
I ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000- I $4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option.
I That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV ; car incentives. Here is what they found:
I ** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! I That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week! ** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. j ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Andrew Medina
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Sam Berndto
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:03 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Q\] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmembers Hampton, Jones, and Lyon, Thanks to your leadership, Pasadena recently declared a climate emergency.
While pursuing our transition away from fossil fuels in our electric system, I also find it necessary that we consider a holistic approach for our city to transition away from fossil fuels. As you know, a significant amount of our greenhouse gas emissions as a city comes from the transportation sector. One way that we could reduce those emissions is by adding e-bikes to the City's EV incentive program.
As such, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thanks for your continued leadership,
Sam Berndt
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Kevin Cheng < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 12:04 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainabitity, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at alt. 1 ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71%of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Cheng
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Alice Lucile Baumgartner < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:22 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability-and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. 1 ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, orVMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alice Baumgartner
Pasadena
Get Outlook for Android
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Ryan Anding < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:48 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Los Angeles county who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e- bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. 1 ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
RyanAnding
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Ctaudia Funke < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:49 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett<[email protected]>; Hampton,Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
I am a resident of Pasadena who is earless. I use my two feet, my bicycle, and a senior metro pass. It's a great way to get around Pasadena—and Los Angeles.
I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. Although I don't anticipate buying an e-bike (or a car) anytime soon, it is clearly the best e-vehicle out there for lowering impact on the environment. And it encourages fitness and is affordable. Lower-income residents would really benefit from this option. And the City has to care more about the welfare of all. Residents with cars would also use them less, as shown by the Denver study, which I'm sure you'll hear about from other Complete Streets Coalition members. Ideally, we want people getting around Pasadena without cars.
Isn't that one of the City's goals?
I join the many others in requesting that the Municipal Services Committee reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your service and your consideration.
Respectfully,
Claudia Funke
Resident, District 7
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Please include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program!" From: Adry Hezekiah < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:09 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Please include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program!!! Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a current & longtime employee in the city of Pasadena (and a former resident) who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind? The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. 1 ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/weekvs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Adry Furchtgott...
...who's never driven a car in his 40 years on this earth, wouldn't suddenly change that just because the car is electric* but certainly WOULD consider an electric assist bike to give me more freedom between my current choices of waiting for the bus or walking until my joints ache.
(*ALL cars suck & destroy cities & far too often officials favor them & give drivers of vehicles priority and special privilege at all levels ruining the walkability & enjoyability of communities.
This favoring of cars & their destruction also hampers the upgrades and additions of bus and light rail infrastructure we so badly need in favor of wider roads and more cars cars cars everywhere which is proven to not be a traffic solution & certainly isn't a climate solution.
Drivers of electric cars still hit and injure or even kill - walkers, cyclists, and other people in cars. 2 The future isn't electric cars - it's FEWER CARS and providing ample alternatives to their use via safe, well-built & actually useful/complete bike paths, walking paths and trails, light rail, additional bus routes and trips - and one can dream big - even a return to trolleys through heavily populated areas replacing other through traffic altogether and creating a safer & more welcoming downtown.)
3 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: K. L. < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:14 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. 1 ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kirby Lima
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: E-bikes are EV's! -MSC Agenda Item #2:
From: Jonah Kanner < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 9:15 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: E-bikes are EV's! -MSC Agenda Item #2:
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
My name is Jonah Kanner -1 ride my electric bike every day in Pasadena. It is fast and convenient, and I always find good parking.
E-bikes are electric vehicles! They deserve the same support and incentives to ownership as electric cars.
The report by PWP staff falsely claims that we don't know if e-bikes will replace car trips. But we DO know! Studies in other cities and academic research have already proven this. For example:
* In Denver, CO, people who bought e-bikes through an incentive program reduced personal VMT by an average 22 miles PER WEEK, leading to a decrease of driving of 100,000 MILES PER WEEK httDS://www.denverKov.ore/Government/Agencies-DeDartments-Offices/ARencies-DeDartments-Offices- Directorv/Climate-Action-Sustainabilitv-Resiliencv/News-Events/News/2023/Denver-E-Bike-and-E-Cargo-Bike-Rebate- Returns-Januarv-31
* "The North American survey of e-bike owners found that 62% of e-bike trips replaced trips that otherwise would have been taken by car"
httos://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/Dii/S1361920920306696 * An economic analysis found that - dollar for dollar - e-bike incentives are more than twice as effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than electric car incentives
httDS://RRwash.org/view/88025/analvsis-e-bike-subsidies-are-more-cost-effective-than-ev-subsidies Clearly, the City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start:
an e-bike incentive.
Please recognize that e-bikes are electric vehicles! Please include e-bikes in the EV incentive program offered by PWP.
Thank you for everything you are doing for our city!
-Jonah Kanner
1